[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.22″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.27.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”]

that and

William Bill Eckert Law Firm Sanctioned

William Bill Eckert Law firm was sanctioned by a Judge.  Sanctioned means the lawyers did something wrong.  Sometimes it’s a violation of a rule that the lawyers know they are not supposed to violate.  Sometimes it’s something unethical.

William Bill Eckert Law Firm

If you’ve read this blog before, you know I frequently write about the problems I have with lawyers.

And this is just another example.

The trial judge found that the conduct by William Bill Eckert and his law firm was designed to (a) “harass”, (b) designed to delay the case, and, (c) needlessly increased the cost of litigation.

So the trial court fined William Bill Eckert and his law firm over $12,000!!!  On appeal, the court reduced this to $3,165.06.

The name of the case was Matthew Nodier v. Ungarino & Eckert.  Case Number 2006 CA 1461.

William Bill Eckert Lawyer

This isn’t the first time that William Bill Eckert law firm has been sanctioned by a court.  It’s literally happened dozens of times.  His law firm, Ungarino & Eckert, has been in trouble with judges many times.

I’ll write about William Bill Eckert and his law firm in the future because it’s so rare that a judge will actually sanction a lawyer.

Why?

I don’t know.

I just know that judges are reluctant to do it even when the lawyer clearly violates the rules.

But William Bill Eckert and his law firm seem to get in trouble with judges quite a bit.

You can read the case about the law firm getting sanctioned by the Judge by clicking on the below link.

Let me list all the cases where William Bill Eckert law firm have been sanctioned in over 20 cases as of January 27, 2017. 

Here is Judge Melancon’s list of cases where this law firm was sanctioned:  Judge Melancon cited the following cases: Fontentot v. Granite State Insurance Company, 2008 WL 4822283 (W.D. La. 11/3/08)(awarding $2,500 in attorneys’ fees to plaintiff due to improper removal and firm’s history);
Saxton v. Thomas, 2007 WL 1115239 (W.D. La. 4/12/07)(noting that “[a]lmost every notice of removal filed by the firm in recent years has been defective for one reason or the other, with the most common problems being failure to meet the minimal requirements of pleading the parties’ citizenship and failure to plead or point to facts adequate to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement,” and awarding plaintiffs $1,000 in legal fees for the improper removal)(citing McClelland v. A.I.G. Ins. Co. Inc., 02–CV–822; Century Surety Co. v. Hays Brothers Angus Ranch, 04–CV–0010; West v. State Farm, 03–CV–1118; Jackson v. Braden, 04–CV–0313; Pinkney v. Family Dollar, 04–CV–1175; Folks v. Goforth, 05–CV–0215; Woods v. Eckerd, 05–CV–704; Shyne v. Ryan’s Family Restaurant, 05–CV–1190; Evans v. Family Dollar, 05–CV–1517; and Atkinson v. Laich Industries Corp., 05–CV– 966); Saxon, 2007 WL 1974914 at *5 (affirming a $1,000 award of attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid by U&E to deter the “firm from continuing to file poorly prepared, defective notices of removal.”); George v. Dolgencorp,
Inc., 2007 WL 4678577 at *2 (recommending sanctions because U&E continue to attempt to remove cases to this court relying on their boiler plate notice of removal form and no support for federal jurisdiction …”); George, 2008 WL 103957 at *2 (declining to impose sanctions against the defendant’s counsel, noting “the decision is a close one” and that “the Court’s patience with mere conclusory allegations of jurisdiction from form removal documents, unsupported by any evidence outside the petition, is quickly running out”); Hampton v. Fred’s Stores of Louisiana, 06–CV–721 (warning that “it is time for such poorly prepared notices of removals to stop” and that “future problems of this nature will be addressed in open court rather than through orders that spell out how to fix the mistakes counsel has made in a notice of removal” and that “the court will consider sanctions or other deterrents …”); Dailey v. Dollar General Stores, 05–CV–1472 (remanding for lack of sufficient jurisdictional amount); Miller v. Bolton, 01–CV–799 (same); Hebert v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 01–CV–367 (same); Burgess v. Ryans Family Steakhouse, Inc., 07–CV–385 (same); Edwards v. Fred’s Inc., 05–CV–288 (same); Keyser Avenue Properties, LLC v. Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc., 06–CV–2199 (same); Gatlin v. Dolengencorp., Inc., 05–CV–2114 (same); Murray v. Oliver, 05–CV–1964 (same); Guin v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 00–CV-657 (same); Demette v. Telecable Associates, 02–CV–737 (recommending remand for lack of sufficient jurisdictional amount, but case settled prior to remand); Johnese v. Guideone Mutual Insurance Co., 05–CV-1039–D–M3 (M.D. La.)(remanding for lack of sufficient jurisdictional amount); Nodier v. Ungarino & Eckert, LLC, 04–895–D–M3 (M.D. La.)(noting that “this is the second instance of this defendant removing a case
of this type to this court without any legal basis for doing so” and accordingly awarding $5,101.25 in attorneys’ fees and $199.00 in costs for improvident removal, but denying Rule 11 sanctions warning that “any similar action in the future will trigger a cause for sanctions.”).

The above cases were cited in Nogess v. Poydras Center, LLC, Number 16-15227 (E.D. LA. 2017), by Judge Michael North, a United States Magistrate Judge in Louisiana.  Judge North held, “The law firm of Ungarino & Eckert is hereby SANCTIONED under Rule 11 for failure to conduct a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances prior to removing this case.  No later than 15 DAYS after entry of this Order and Reasons, U&E [Ungarino & Eckert] is to pay to the Clerk of the Eastern District of Louisiana the sum of $4,500.” 

Ouch!  When Ungarino & Eckert paid that fine with their law firm check, I’ll bet that was not any fun.

I’ll write more about this law firm and the lawyers in it in future.  Apparently, Ungarino & Eckert is no longer an existing law firm as the lawyers stopped practicing law with each other.  It is unknown why.

William Bill Eckert Lawyer Sanctioned By Judge

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]